The intra-segment concurrency PR has been pretty close for quite a few days already. I ran benchmarks last week, made adjustments, and just finished addressing comments from Mike's review. My plan would be to merge it tomorrow unless there are objections.
Regarding the usage of the deprecated search method, I agree that we should not delay the release for that, yet I hope that we get that done. I will try to tackle the remaining issues, and Greg has been helping there too, thanks a lot! For anyone else interested, the description of the issue lists a number of remaining items that need fixing: https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/12892 . Cheers Luca On Mon, Sep 9, 2024 at 7:46 PM Adrien Grand <jpou...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks to all who replied to this thread and worked on getting these > blockers addressed. In particular I see that support for JDK 23, > backporting the Arena work, and the removal of CollectorOwner are merged. > > I just reviewed the humongous PR that migrates more classes to records > <https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13328>, it looks pretty good to > me. If someone can look at my comments (hopefully much quicker than > reviewing the whole PR!), I would appreciate it. > > To be transparent, the more usage of the deprecated > IndexSearcher#search(Query, Collector) we can remove > <https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/12892>, the better, but I don't > plan on delaying the release if it's not finished. Likewise, I don't plan > on delaying 10.0 if support for native dot product > <https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13572> is not merged, it could > make it to a minor release later on if needed. > > I haven't taken a deep look at RaBitQ > <https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13651>. If it's ready in time for > 9.12 and 10.0, I'm fine with it getting merged, but as a new feature that > doesn't look like it requires breaking changes to our public API, it could > be introduced in a minor release later on, so I don't plan to treat it as a > blocker. > > I would like to get support for intra-segment search concurrency > <https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13542> in, as it is breaking > enough that we could not easily introduce it in a minor later on. It seems > to be almost ready, so hopefully it will get merged before feature freeze > next week? > > I'm not clear if someone is actively looking into the recall issues with > 8-bit quantization <https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/13519>? > > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 10:14 PM Shubham Chaudhary <shubhmas...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > Maybe mark it blocker so we don't lose track? >> >> Hi Mike, it's already linked to the 10.0 milestone. Is there some way to >> mark or track it as a blocker for 10.0? It would be great if I could get >> some reviews on it. The PR has been accumulating merge conflicts over time. >> I'm happy to address the comments and iterate on it to get this done for >> the 10.0 release. >> >> - Shubham >> >> On Wed, Sep 4, 2024 at 7:20 PM Michael McCandless < >> luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Aug 31, 2024 at 2:00 PM Shubham Chaudhary <shubhmas...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, regarding the 10.0 release, should we also consider >>>> https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13328. It was planned for 10.0 ( >>>> https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/13207) and is waiting on >>>> review, so I think it'll be good if we could consider it. Looking forward >>>> to views and seeing if there are any concerns with the change I'm unaware >>>> of. >>>> >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> It looks like this one is super close? A couple of rounds of feedback >>> from Uwe, folded into the PR. Maybe mark it blocker so we don't lose track? >>> >>> Thanks Shubham. >>> >>> Mike McCandless >>> >>> http://blog.mikemccandless.com >>> >>> >>>> - Shubham >>>> >>>> On Thu, Aug 8, 2024 at 10:20 PM Adrien Grand <jpou...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello everyone, >>>>> >>>>> As previously discussed >>>>> <https://lists.apache.org/thread/4bhnkkvvodxxgrpj4yqm5yrgj0ppc59r>, I >>>>> plan on releasing 9.last and 10.0 under the following timeline: >>>>> - ~September 15th: 10.0 feature freeze - main becomes 11.0 >>>>> - ~September 22nd: 9.last release, >>>>> - ~October 1st: 10.0 release. >>>>> >>>>> Unless someone shortly volunteers to do a 9.x release, this 9.last >>>>> release will likely be 9.12. >>>>> >>>>> As these dates are coming shortly, I would like to start tracking >>>>> blockers. Please reply to this thread with issues that you know about that >>>>> should delay the 9.last or 10.0 releases. >>>>> >>>>> Chris, Uwe: I also wanted to check with you if this timeline works >>>>> well with regards to supporting Java 23 in 9.last and 10.0? >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Adrien >>>>> >>>> > > -- > Adrien >
